Former UJ lecturer slams varsity lawyer over her medical records
A FORMER University of Johannesburg (UJ) lecturer who was dismissed in 2020 has accused the institution’s legal representative of accessing her medical report without her consent. This was heard at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) where the former employee, Lyness Matizirofa, is currently fighting her dismissal from the university.
Matizirofa, who was a lecturer in the UJ statistics department, was fired for poor performance and gross dishonesty in February 2020. However, she maintained that these were trumped-up charges.
Matizirofa, who originates from Zimbabwe, said she was unfairly dismissed based on xenophobia and the fact that she has a disability.
She said UJ and its legal representative, Eversheds and Sutherland (SA) INC, plotted her dismissal through her medical report. She said this was after Nadia Foreman, a legal practitioner at Eversheds and Sutherland, and a UJ HR practitioner, colluded to share her medical report on August 29, 2019 without her consent.
She said this was before she was dismissed in 2020.
Matizirofa said this was after former
UJ vice-chancellor Professor Tshilidzi Marwala realised it was more expensive to “reasonably accommodate” her because of her disability and allegedly plotted her dismissal.
She submitted a report of reasonable accommodation but UJ allegedly failed to accommodate her disability at the Doornfontein campus after she complained about a lack of facilities at the John Orr Building.
The email of the report was shared with the building managers, HR and third parties including Foreman.
The email read: “Dear Lyness. Please find the attached report from the UJ Disability Unit. Attached further hereto is the letter which you received in March 2019.
“According to the attached, you have been reasonably accommodated and the university has taken reasonable steps to address your concerns. In his capacity as HOD, Mr van Appeal communicated a reasonable and lawful instruction to you. You may exercise your rights as mentioned in your email. The university’s rights are also reserved in this regard.”
On Monday, Matizirofa’s legal representative, advocate Macgregor Kufa, told commissioner Piet van Staden this violated her human rights as the medical history was unlawfully accessed.
He said the records were accessed prior to the disciplinary hearing against Matizirofa.
Although she admitted that she had received the medical records as part of the grievance, Foreman said she did not receive them on August 29, 2019. She told Van Staden that she could not recall if she received the report before or in preparation for the disciplinary hearing. She also said some of her emails had been deleted.
UJ and Marwala previously contended that the allegations were designed to cause irreparable harm to their good names and reputations.
Kufa said this was a violation of Matizirofa’s human rights, adding that the Constitution protected the rights of all people in South Africa.
“Section 9 of the Constitution provides
that everyone is equal before the law and has equal protection and benefit of the law. No person, including the state and private companies, may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly on one or more grounds against any person on one or more grounds including race, gender, colour, age or disability.”
Section 10 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have their dignity respected and protected. It states: “South Africa is a party to international laws and agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) of 2006, which South Africa ratified in 2007, which means that the country accepts all the legal obligations that are imposed by this instrument. The CRPD seeks to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by persons with disabilities.”
Matizorofa launched a complaint against Foreman, her colleague Sandro Milo and Eversheds and Sutherland with the Legal Practice Council in July 2023 over their alleged behaviour in a bid to limit her rights to pursue justice.
She said they had employed calculated and overbearing legal strategies and rules that implicated her, while “immunising” themselves by the use of discriminatory practices.